Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner Mohinder Singh S/o. Major Singh, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused Hardeep Singh alias Bittu S/o. Karnail Singh, vide FIR No. 43 dated 30.5.2014 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ''the NDPS Act''), by the police of Police Station Tallewal, District Barnala.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

Precisely, the prosecution, inter-alia, claimed that on 30.5.2014, on the basis of suspicion, Hardeep Singh alias Bittu was apprehended by the police and in the wake of search, 1000 intoxicant tablets of white coloured were recovered from his plastic bag without any permit or licence. During the course of investigation, he disclosed that petitioner Mohinder Singh is running Guru Nanak Medical Store on the outskirts of village Kalal Majra without any authorization/licence. He (Hardeep Singh) was working in his store at a monthly salary of Rs. 3000/-. He has specifically mentioned that petitioner used to sell the intoxicated medicines/tablets, worth Rs. 10/- at the rate of Rs. 200/- to drug addicts. The petitioner used to pay 20% commission to him (Hardeep Singh). Petitioner instigated him to earn ill-gotten money by selling the indicated drugs to the drug addicts.

Meaning thereby, the involvement of petitioner is clearly borne out from the record. However, the celebrated contention of learned counsel that such disclosure statement of co-accused is not sufficient to convict the petitioner is neither tenable at this stage nor the observations of Hon''ble Apex Court in cases Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, ; Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, ; Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, and bail order of Rajasthan High Court in case Balu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, are at all applicable to the facts of this case, wherein, on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of those cases, it was observed that the nature and gravity of accusation and the exact role of accused must be properly comprehended before his arrest is made, before arresting a person, the police must be able to justify the arrest, no arrest can be made on mere allegation of commission of offence and suspicion of complicity in the offence and disclosure statement of a co-accused recorded by the police is not sufficient in this regard. Possibly, no one can dispute with respect to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy at this stage, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.

At the very outset, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that possession and sale etc. of such drugs squarely fall within the ambit of offence punishable u/s. 22 of the NDPS Act, in view of ratio of law laid down by this Court in case Parmanand and Others Vs. State of Haryana, As is evident from the record that petitioner is running Guru Nanak Medical Store without any permit or licence, whereas his co-accused Hardeep Singh used to bring intoxicant drugs to be sold on his shop for their illegal gains to the drugs addicts. No doubt, the disclosure statement of co-accused alone is not sufficient to convict the petitioner. At the same time, it has corroborative value to corroborate the other evidence, which is yet to be collected by the police after interrogation of the petitioner. Not only that, the police has yet to collect the other evidence, relatable to the present case as well. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith at this stage that there is no evidence on record and petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail, as contrary urged on his behalf. Moreover, it cannot possibly be denied that tendency and frequency of selling intoxicant drugs by such accused on un-authorized drugs'' shop to drug addicts, to earn ill-gotten money, have been tremendously increasing day by day, destroying the basic fabric and health of the society, which needs to be curbed with heavy hands.

Therefore, taking into consideration the indicated allegations of the offence assigned to the petitioner, to my mind, his custodial interrogation is essential. The police has yet to interrogate him and to collect evidence. In case, he is allowed anticipatory bail, then, the investigating agency would be deprived to ascertain the source of illegal drugs, modus operandi of petitioner, his involvement in any other cases, to unearth the scam, to recover the case property as he is running Guru Nanak Medical Store without any authorization and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which is not legally permissible.

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Needless to mention that nothing recorded, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail.